SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON vs.

GARAY AND PNB

G.R. No. 179914
June 16, 2014
FACTS: Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly Sombilon were the owners of a property which they
mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as security for their loan, was foreclosed and sold
at public auction on July 15, 1998, where PNB emerged as the winning bidder. A Certificate of Sale
was issued in PNBs name, which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds. The one-year
redemption period lapsed but spouses Sombilon failed to redeem the property. On February 15,
2005, a Final Deed of Conveyance was issued in favor of PNB. On April 14, 2005, Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 94384 was issued in the name of PNB. On the same date, PNB
decided to approve the purchase offer of Atty. Garay since spouses Sombilon failed to make the
required down payment. On May 9, 2005, PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of
Possession before the RTC. Respondent Judge Venadas, Sr. issued an Order granting the Petition
and issued a Writ of Possession in favor of PNB. On July 10, 2005, spouses Sombilon moved for a
reconsideration of the issuance of the Writ of Possession arguing that Atty. Garay, who was the
former counsel of Hilly, was barred from purchasing the property pursuant to paragraph 5, Article
1491 of the Civil Code. Respondent Judge hereby held in abeyance the Writ of Possession.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Venadas, Sr. committed grave abuse of discretion in holding in abeyance
the implementation of the Writ of Possession
RULING: Yes. The issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon the court. A debtor has one
year from the date the Certificate of Sale is registered with the Register of Deeds within which to
redeem his property. During the one-year redemption period, the purchaser may possess the
property by filing a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the court, upon the
posting of a bond. But after the one-year period, the purchaser has a right to consolidate the title
and to possess the property, without need of a bond. And once title is consolidated under the name
of the purchaser, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on the part of the
court; thus, no discretion is left to the court. Questions regarding the regularity and validity of the
mortgage or the foreclosure sale may not be raised as a ground to oppose or hold in abeyance
the issuance of the writ of possession as these must be raised in a separate action for
the annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale. The pendency of such action is also not
a ground to stay the issuance of a writ ofpossession. In this case, the redemption period had
long lapsed when PNB applied for the issuance of the Writ of Possession. In fact, the title over the
subject property had already been consolidated in PNBs name. Thus, it was ministerial upon
Judge Venadas, Sr. to issue the Writ of Possession in favor of PNB, the registered owner of the
subject property.
Though there are instances when the issuance of the Writ of Possession may be deferred, we find
none of these recognized exceptions present in the instant case. Spouses Sombilon claim that the
sale between PNB and Atty. Garay was invalid as it was done in violation of paragraph 5, Article
1491 of the Civil Code. However, the alleged invalidity of the sale is not a ground to oppose or

defer the issuance of the Writ of Possession as this does not affect PNBs right to possess the
subject property. Thus, there was no reason for Judge Venadas, Sr. to hold in abeyance the
implementation of the Writ of Possession. Clearly, he committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the assailed Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession
because PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject property as a
matter of right.